Probate & Trust Law Section Conference Manual ... - Minnesota CLE

E. Adverse Possession
1. *Jokela v. Jokela, No. A11-1246, 2012 WL 3553110 (Minn. Ct. App.
Aug. 20, 2012). Surviving son’s continuous occupancy of decedent’s
land and failure to agree to probate proceeding to determine descent
of land was not sufficient to support a finding that son adversely
possessed land. Decedent died intestate in 1982 and owned a large
amount of farmland. Decedent was survived by three children. One of
decedent’s sons occupied the farmland (Wendell) after decedent’s death,
however decedent’s estate was never probated due to Wendell’s reluctance
to do so. Decedent’s other children died in 2005 and 2006. In 2010, the
deceased children’s surviving spouses petitioned for a decree of descent to
divide the property so they would receive their spouse’s share of the
property. The petition was granted, and Wendell appealed, arguing that he
had acquired title to the property by adverse possession. Under Minnesota
law, adverse possession requires a showing, “by clear and convincing
evidence, an actual, open, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession”
for 15 years. Even though Wendell had not agreed to settle his father’s
estate, the evidence did not show that he made any explicit or implicit
attempt to oust his siblings from using the property nor did it show that he
even communicated to his siblings his belief that he was the sole owner of
the farmland. For these reasons, the court rejected Wendell’s argument
and upheld the district court’s determination of descent ruling.
F. No-Contest Clauses
1. Martin v. Ullsperger, 822 N.W.2d 382 (Neb. 2012). A will cannot be
attacked, for purposes of no-contest clause analysis, after a court has
issue an order closing decedent’s estate. Under decedent’s will, his four
surviving children are beneficiaries of a joint life estate interest in
farmland. The will provided that no life tenant or remainderman could
partition the property during the existence of any life tenancy. Through a
codicil, decedent later added a no-contest provision, which would serve to
disinherit any child who contested his will. After the probate court
entered the final order in decedent’s probate proceeding, daughter and son
brought a partition action in district court to divide the property. The
district court dismissed the partition action because it concluded that
daughter and son were bound by the will’s restriction against partition.
The remaining siblings, however, argue that daughter and son have also
forfeited their interest in the farmland by contesting the will through a
partition action. The court held that the prohibition on partition was
enforceable as a result of the probate of decedent’s will without objection;
but the attempt to partition does not act as a will contest, requiring
forfeiture of daughter and son’s interest. Even if a partition action may be
considered an indirect will challenge, the court reasoned that it is not
possible to attack a will after the court has issued an order closing the
25